Analysis: The Case for Voting Systems that Promote Full Representation and Majority Rule

Our increasingly diverse cities need voting systems that facilitate the
representation of all points of view and significant communities of
interests and thereby promote real majority rule. In most cases, full
voting systems are the best vehicle for achieving these goals.The present "winner-take-all" electoral system used in most elections
in the United States typically divides representation into districts or
wards, with each district electing one representative. In other places
voters elect several seats at-large, with 50.1% of voters having the
power to win all seats. These winner-take-all systems were implemented
at a time when no other systems had been developed and when the
electorate of most states was relatively homogeneous and when
communication and transportation were slow, making geographic-based
representation more logical. To early Americans, any method of election
was a vast improvement over being ruled by a king.

But winner-take-all systems do a poor job in representing political
minorities that are geographically dispersed. The problem with
winner-take-all voting in the 21st century is that many cities and
states are composed of an increasingly diverse population with a
variety of political views. Particularly in urban areas, people are
from varying race, class, ethnic and religious backgrounds. Yet they
all must share the same representative in the House of Representatives
and in most state legislatures. What about the 49.9% of voters who
might not vote for a winning candidate or those on the winning side who
had to settle on a "lesser of two evils?" What about the majority of
adults who no longer vote in most elections? They all too likely are
"represented" by someone with whom they feel little affinity. This poor
representation calls into question the effectiveness of a single
representative speaking for increasingly diverse populations.

Fortunately, there are tried and true alternatives. Full representation
systems of voting (such as choice voting and party list voting, limited
voting and cumulative voting) are designed to promote fair
representation. This means that various political constituencies within
the majority and the minority can win representation while still
maintaining majority rule.

In our society, "minority" often has the connotation of a racial or
ethnic minority, but proportional voting systems allow representation
of any type of minority: Republicans in a Democratic area, liberal
black voters in a white-majority area in the south, pro-life voters in
a pro-choice stronghold, independent voters everywhere, and so on. With
proportional representation, more voters get a seat at the table. And
more voters get a piece of the pie.

Choice voting, limited voting and cumulative voting are candidate-based
systems already used in local elections in the United States. Each use
different methods to achieve full representation, and, not
surprisingly, result in different outcomes. Limited voting and
cumulative voting are are particularly successful in opening access to
representation for a cohesive political minority by allowing its
members to express a strong preference for particular candidates.
Because of their particular rules, both limited and cumulative voting
sometimes fail to achieve the broader goal of full representation, but
both result in more representative assemblies than winner-take-all
systems.

Choice voting comes closer to achieving full representation. When
compared to winner-take-all systems, choice voting sharply reduces the
percentage of votes it takes to win a legislative seat. This lower
victory threshold allows various "minority" constituencies to win
representation without having to be a local majority created in the
districting process. It allows them to elect a candidate to represent
their shared values and interests -- in a sense, choice voting allows
individual voters to "district" themselves with political allies.

At the same time, choice voting encourages coalition-building and
majority representation by valuing a candidate’s ability to be the
second and third choice of supporters of other candidates. Choice
voting promotes coalition-building and organizing across racial, ethnic
and partisan lines.When its potential is fully realized, choice voting combines the best
of local, district elections and at-large, citywide elections. On the
one hand, neighborhoods tend to win representation because candidates
often decide they can best earn strong support from voters in their
geographic area. Yet other candidates will win by appealing to a
geographically dispersed community of interest, all while forming
coalitions. The end result is a legislature that is a "gorgeous mosaic"
of the community, and more fully representative of the wishes of the
electorate.

Our diverse, modern society requires a modern voting system that will
facilitate adequate representation of this growing diversity. The need
to represent more communities of interest while promoting coalitions is
especially pressing in our cities, where "the majority" is increasingly
composed of a collection of minorities. City planners should take great
care in choosing an electoral system, as the ability to bring all
groups to the table of representation may be the only glue in the
future that will hold our major cities and surrounding suburbs together.

In Detroit, there have been three mayors in the past two years and the current one has come under scrutiny. Perhaps a system like instant runoff voting will help bring political stability to motor city.